Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 99 (Monday, July 8, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 99 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7358-S7366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FBI FILES AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on Wednesday, July 3, which,
incidentally, was the cost-of-Government day, which means the last day
after which an American family finally quit paying Government--July 4
took on a special meaning because it was not only Independence Day, but
because it is the first day a family could keep its own check. But,
interestingly enough, in the midst of all the debate, a very
interesting editorial appeared in the Washington Post, which
characterizes itself as an independent newspaper.
On July 3, the Washington Post said, ``FBI Files and the ex-FBI
Author.'' That was the name of the article. It says:

Controversy swirls around both [these issues], but it ought
to be possible to separate the probe of the improperly
requisitioned FBI reports by the Clinton White House from the
effort to sort out fact from fiction in former FBI agent Gary
Aldrich's book about life at the White House.

I agree with this. I agree that the commentary of a popular book
ought to be separate from the very, very serious issue of hundreds of
our citizens' personal FBI files going to the--hundreds. At this time
the current number keeps going up. It started out 300. Then it went to
407. Then it went to 600. Then 700. The last report I have seen is 900.
It is almost beyond belief. Both that the White House could request
those personal files and that those files could be violated by our own
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Post says:

The three probes need to find out if the country has an
abuse of presidential power on its hands or whether it is
witnessing yet one more White House staff-administered blow
to this president's prestige.

Mr. President, for my own part, while there is deep concern about
what has transpired at the White House, I think so far the public
discourse underestimates what transpired at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. It is beyond my understanding how this many personal
files or the data in those files could be copied and so routinely made
available to the White House without fire alarms and sirens going off
from the front to the back door and all the way to the Director's
office. I cannot imagine how this could happen. Now, the Director has
said there was an egregious breach of honor between the White House and
the FBI, but much more will have to be answered than that simple
question.

Mr. President, I see we have been joined by the distinguished Senator
from Arizona. I yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from Arizona for
his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia both for
taking time to get into this matter and also for yielding time to me.
I was perplexed, to say the least, as I sat through hearings as a
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee just before the Fourth of July
break, hearing testimony from Mr. Livingstone and others regarding this
matter of the FBI files. I am going to come back to some conclusions
that came out of that hearing and some questions that remain in a
moment.
I thought, first, perhaps, it would be useful to discuss generally
what we have here. There have been, especially in the time since
Watergate, numerous investigations of officials involved in different
administrations. To some extent, I think this has been politically
motivated. To a large extent, I think it is a process that is important
in a democracy, because people need to have confidence in their
Government, particularly when people in high places are accused of
wrongdoing or there is a potential of wrongdoing. We have established a
system whereby an independent kind of investigator or prosecutor called
the special counsel is appointed by the Attorney General, with court
acquiescence, to investigate matters. There have been prosecutions from
time to time in administrations since the Watergate matter that have
demonstrated it is wise to have these kinds of special counsel
available to look into such matters.
While there may be some politics involved, and certainly Republicans
believe there is politics involved in some of the investigations in the
Reagan and Bush administrations, and I am sure that some Democrats
believe there is glee in Republican ranks to find things wrong now in a
Democratic administration, the fact is it is still important to try to
get to the bottom of some of these matters, particularly where it goes
beyond politics. I think it can be demonstrated with this
administration that it has gone far beyond politics, that there has
been wrongdoing, and that there are people in this administration that,
to say the least, have been ethically challenged.
As a matter of fact, Mr. President, according to an article written
by Mary McGrory in the Washington Post,

President Clinton said that his administration would be the
most ethical administration in the history of the Republic.

That was shortly after he was inaugurated. I think history will
reveal that this is one of the most ethically challenged
administrations in the history of the Republic. This FBI scandal is,
frankly, just the latest of the scandals in the Clinton White House. As
the Senator from Georgia pointed out, this involves the misuse of about
900--at least that is the number we have so far--900 FBI files.
Going back to reflect on what has occurred earlier in
this administration, and again this is not really partisan because if
you look at the last three Presidents, President Carter, President
Reagan, and President Bush, I think almost all Americans would agree
that all three of these Presidents had the highest ethical standards,
Carter a Democrat, the other two Republicans. It did not matter what
their politics were. I think most Americans believe that all three of
them are people of the greatest integrity and repute. To the extent
there was any wrongdoing in any of their administrations each one of
them had accusations made, they took responsibility, they tried to
clean house, and their integrity, I think, remains without question.

In this particular administration, look at what we have. We have
first of all, Roger Altman, Treasury Secretary who misled Congress
about his discussions of a Whitewater-connected S&L. He resigned. Henry
Cisneros, the HUD Secretary under investigation by court-appointed
counsel for lying to the FBI. Mike Espy, former Secretary of
Agriculture, under investigation for taking illegal gifts. He resigned.
Web Hubble, a very close associate of the President and First Lady,
Associate Attorney General, has been sentenced to 21 months in jail for
mail fraud and tax evasion. William Kennedy, former associate White
House counsel, and possibly one of the people involved in the hirings
of Craig Livingstone, failed to pay Social Security taxes and resigned.
Bernard Nussbaum, former White House counsel, resigned his post after
being accused of improper contacts with Whitewater investigators. David
Watkins, former White House director of administration, resigned after
he used a Presidential helicopter to play golf. Hazel O'Leary,
Secretary of Energy, has committees looking after her travel, and
though she is still in the job, questions remain. More than a dozen
indictments relating generally to Whitewater, most resulting in plea
bargains, if not convictions. As a matter of fact, three close
associates of the President were convicted by a jury, including the
President's hand-picked successor, Gov. Jim Guy Tucker.
Then the Travelgate matter. It was as a result of the Travelgate
investigation that the information about the FBI files came out. It
was, really, quite by accident. The House committee investigating the
Travelgate matter had asked for 3,000 documents, all of which had been
denied by the White House, 3,000 documents. Finally, under threat of
subpoena and contempt of Congress if they did not comply with the
subpoena, the White House agreed to turn over one-third of those
documents. It was one of those 1,000 documents that led investigators
of the House committee into the FBI file issue, because there was a
reference to FBI files having been obtained, I think, perhaps, relating
to Billy Dale who was the fired head of the Travel Office of the White
House. The rest, as is commonly said, is history.

[[Page S7359]]

It was learned first that there were about 300 files, then 400, and
as the Senator from Georgia pointed out, it may now be as many as 900
files improperly obtained, most of which were reviewed. It is unclear
whether information in those files has been revealed to people
improperly. In any event, the mere review of those files was improper,
as was the acquisition of those files from the FBI. Also, quite
improper was the storage of the files then in the White House, rather
than having them returned to the FBI. The fact they were not secure and
many people had access to them who should not have had access to them,
we do not know yet what might have been done with those files and
whether information was copied or used. We may not know for a long time
whether information in those files, stored away in somebody's drawer,
might later come back to haunt some of the people whose files were
improperly obtained.

All of this is beginning to come out. It is not coming out from the
White House. It is having to be gathered by the House committee, the
Senate committee, the special prosecutor. Just little bits and pieces
of information keep coming out. There is no coming clean by this
administration, which was going to be the most ethical in history. As a
matter of fact, the President originally attributed this whole matter
to a bureaucratic snafu. Now, I think one of two things is true, Mr.
President, but a bureaucratic snafu is not one of them.
Here is what we know for a fact: A political operative, so described
in the press, I am talking about Craig Livingstone, part of his
responsibilities in previous campaigns had been opposition research,
and part of it had been to cause Republicans traveling around George
Bush, I think, in particular, trouble when he stopped at various
locations. But Craig Livingstone has had a history in Democratic
campaigns of snooping on the opposition, learning facts. I believe it
was by his own admission or perhaps he was proud of the fact that he
learned things about the Dan Quayle campaign, took them back to the
Mondale campaign, and, as a result of that in the debate that Dan
Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen had, Bentsen was able to come up with the
great line, ``You're no John Kennedy,'' because Livingstone had learned
in advance that Quayle was going to compare himself during this debate
to John Kennedy.

So here you have a man who has admitted that he is a political
snoop--some say dirt digger, but let us use the term that is generally
applied, and that is a person skilled in ``opposition research,'' an
individual who finds out things about the opposition in political
campaigns, a person with no professional security experience
whatsoever.
Now, when this administration comes into power, people who have been
there through Democrat and Republican administrations, nonpartisan,
professional security people, who have been in charge of White House
personnel files, to get clearance so that the people who are in the
White House are all cleared, are let go. Mr. Livingstone is brought in,
and nobody seems to remember who hired him. Nobody can recall. This is
the first job this guy has in the White House, and he cannot remember
who hired him. I think if I got a job in the White House, I would
remember who hired me. But that is another matter.
This person, with no experience whatsoever, certainly not a
professional in security matters, is put in charge of what? He is put
in charge of the most sensitive material on any American citizen--their
FBI file. These are the things which people have had to tell the FBI in
order to get clearance. They are the most sensitive things about their
history that exist. These FBI files, then, are routinely reviewed by
the security office in order to give these clearances. Craig
Livingstone is specifically given the job of clearing people for the
ability to be in the White House and have access to the White House.
Now, is it a coincidence that somebody who is skilled primarily in
opposition research in political campaigns just happens to come across
300, 400, 600, maybe 900 FBI files--almost exclusively of Republicans--
and that he then has a friend of his, who also has been involved in
this kind of political activity, review those files? Is it just
coincidence that a person with that kind of background then begins to
conduct this kind of activity? Maybe so. That is one possibility. The
other possibility is that he was told to do it and he was following
orders. Those are the two possibilities, Mr. President.
There was no bureaucratic snafu because there was no bureaucrat
involved. There was a paid political operative involved. One of the
things that I think we need to find out is exactly what did Craig
Livingstone and Anthony Marceca do when they worked in the various
Presidential campaigns that they worked in? Were they involved, as has
been reported, in doing opposition research? Why were they hired? Who
made the decision to hire them? Why were they hired? People with no
security background skills, but very skilled in opposition research--
apparently--according to Craig Livingstone's own comments in his
hometown newspaper. Why were they hired? Who hired them? What
instructions were they given? Were they simply operating on their own?
Based upon the information that has come out in the hearings, it is
very unclear whether or not anybody gave them instructions. It is not
resolved yet. That is an open question. It may be that if you hire a
plumber, you will assume he will do plumbing. And if you hire an
opposition researcher, the assumption is that he will do some
opposition research for you. Maybe there does not have to be an
explicit instruction. As a matter of fact, maybe under the doctrine of
plausible deniability here, the instructions were given in a wink and a
nod so that anybody higher up in the White House could say, ``Gee, I
never told him to dig up dirt on Republicans. I guess he just did that
on his own. We certainly did not ask him to do it.''

So it seems to me that one of two things is true. When you hire a
political operative, a person who is skilled in opposition research, by
his own account, and he happens to gather up the files of the
opposition on, in effect, 800 or 900 Republicans, it could be
coincidence. That could be true. It could also be that it was
intentional. If it was intentional, it was for the purpose of learning
information about these people which could later be used for political
purposes. There has been a lot of speculation about possible motives.
There is no question that Billy Dale, the head of the travel office,
was greatly mistreated by this administration. The FBI was brought in
to investigate. He was eventually prosecuted and, of course, he was
found innocent. But his file was among those requested, and the files
were from A to G, and that certainly falls within that area. So it
could have been to get information on him, and the rest of the files
were used for cover.
It could have been that this administration, intent on learning
everything it could about 900 Republicans--there were something like a
thousand people who needed access to the White House, who needed
clearance, and they had not even complied with the FBI yet so they
could be cleared. It was a year or two before many people who needed
security clearances in this administration were cleared. It finally
became a scandal about this same time. Dee Dee Myers, the press
secretary, did not even have clearance. Time after time, people who
needed clearance put off interviews with the FBI, refused to give them
information. It was not until after this that the GAO did an audit and
the White House had to clean up its act and at least get the
information together to provide the security clearances for people who
required access to the White House.
There is speculation that in order to, in effect, cover for that
deficiency and inadequacy, the thought was that if we dig up some dirt
on Republicans, that will even it out and there will not be so much
heat put on us. Maybe it was simply for future use, or for present and
future use. We do not know. We have not gotten answers to some
questions yet. Either it was an enormous coincidence, or there was
something more sinister behind it.
In either event, it was wrong, and no one has denied that access to
these FBI files by people who should not have had access for these
reasons was wrong, was unethical and, perhaps, depending upon if IRS
material was in the files, for example, was illegal as well.
So let us just conclude with some questions here that I think we are

[[Page S7360]]

going to need to get the answers to before we make any accusations. I
do not think we know enough yet to make accusations. Here are some of
the questions I would like to have answered. Let us tie down exactly
who hired Livingstone and why. It was, as George Stephanopolous points
out, an incredibly loose, informal, and I would say negligent approach
to hiring one of the most important people in the White House. He
happened to be on board when Kennedy got there and, therefore, they
just assumed he should be the guy in charge. So his employment was then
ratified. Well, who decided all of that, and on what basis was
Livingstone hired as opposed to some professional?
As a matter of fact, the White House had a recommendation before it
by the then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, my
predecessor, Senator DeConcini from Arizona--a Democrat, by the way.
After reviewing the White House security office situation, that
committee made recommendations, conveyed by Senator DeConcini, that the
White House had to get its act together and appoint a professional,
nonpartisan person to head this office. That was not done. As a matter
of fact, I have read that letter of transmittal. There was a very nice
response back by the then White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler, who
thanked Senator DeConcini for the information and said they would get
back to the committee after deciding what to do. As far as I know,
there was never any further response. It was known that there was a
problem here. So, in a bipartisan way, recommendations were made to the
White House to clean it up. But it apparently was not cleaned up.
Who discussed this within the White House? Why were the political
operatives put in charge of reviewing these files? What activities did
Livingstone and Marceca actually perform in the Democratic campaigns of
George McGovern, Ed Muskie, Geraldine Ferraro, Al Gore, Bill Clinton,
and others? Are these men the political opposition researchers, dirt
diggers, spoofs, or whatever you want to call it? Did Livingstone
infiltrate the Dan Quayle campaign? Who gave them their instructions
and what were they?
Did anyone in the White House ever become aware of any of the
information from those files? This information only came to light, as I
said, because the House oversight committee was going to subpoena it
from the White House. But there are still 2,000 documents that have not
been reviewed. There is now an arrangement under which the House
committee can look at those 2,000 documents. But they cannot be taken
out of the White House possession. What is in those 2,000 documents?
Finally, when the problem was discovered, why did the White House not
come forward? Why was Craig Livingstone hired? If it was merely a
mistake, as the White House indicated, one would have thought, if this
is the most ethical White House in the history of the Republic, that
the White House would have come forward and would have said, ``We want
to find out something here; we want to make everybody aware of it; here
is a big mistake; here is what it is.'' You would have assumed they
would have come forward.
One of the suggestions of wrongdoing is there is an attempt to cover
up. Certainly in this case there has been an attempt to cover up.
So I realize these are more questions than answers but I think these
are the things that we need to get out, and we need to find the answers
to. And in this case, unlike the assertion with regard to certain other
situations, there is already an acknowledgment by everyone that there
was something wrong done. It was a question about whether it was
intentional, or just accidental. But clearly it was wrong.
So I do not think we can have the excuse that we should not be
spending money to look into this, that there should not be hearings to
get to the bottom of it, and so on. Remember that when there is any
illegality, or impropriety, or something that is wrong and gives people
less confidence in their Government, we need to get to the bottom of it
because the essence of a democratic republic, such as ours, is that the
people run their government, they have confidence in it, they have
trust in it, and when that lags, when that fails, when it frays, then
the very fabric of our Government begins to come apart.
So, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Georgia for having this
discussion to bring some of these questions to the floor; to raise some
of the questions that we still need to get answers to. And I think it
is appropriate, both for this body and for the House of
Representatives, to continue the investigation to get to the bottom of
the matter so that at a very minimum nothing like this can ever happen
again. It is people's lives that have been intruded into here; innocent
people. And the power of the Federal Government and of the White House
should never be used for political retribution, or to disclose the
deepest secrets of any individual for improper purposes.
Therefore, we have every reason, I think, to ask these questions and
to try to get to the bottom of this FBI file matter.
Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia for bringing this matter to
the light of day.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to pay particular compliment to
the Senator from Arizona. I believe he has framed the substance of this
issue very succinctly, in a way that is most understanding in the
phrasing of the questions for which we must resolve. It was exceedingly
well done. I want to compliment the Senator from Arizona for his usual
form as he deals with this very, very sensitive subject.

Mr. President, I want to go back to the Washington Post editorial
that appeared on July 3. They point out that we now have three separate
inquiries, or investigations into what went wrong between the White
House and the FBI. There is the House inquiry, a Senate inquiry, and,
of course, the Justice Department has now turned this matter over to
Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.
They say:

The three probes need to find out if the country has an
abuse of Presidential power on its hands or whether it is
witnessing yet one more White House staff-administered blow
to this President's prestige.

Then they go on again to say that we need to separate these probes
from the books that are appearing on a regular basis, and I concur with
that entirely.
It goes on to say:

Four days of congressional hearings, however, have yet to
adequately explain why hundreds of FBI reports on employees
of former Republican administrations ended up in the office
of former party operative and now resigned White House
personnel security director Craig Livingstone. For nearly two
years, sensitive FBI documents were maintained in an office
and vault where political advance types, interns and
volunteers--without security clearances--could have had easy
access to them. What happened to security standards?

This is a question that every American citizen will now want
answered, and answered quickly.
Mr. President, we have been joined by the Senator from Montana, and I
yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, we have all come off of a week of vacation with a lot
of travel. You get to visit with a lot of people. We think that the
whole world is focused in on what happens here in Washington, DC. To
our surprise it is not. Maybe that is something to be thankful about.
Mr. President, I am baffled after coming off this vacation that I can
be sitting in a committee hearing with CEO's and president's of
companies like Netscape, like Microsoft; like all of the companies that
have come to be, within the last 10 or 15 years, powerful; and
companies in the new technologies that we are using today, listening to
these president's and CEO's argue for strong encryption technology that
is vital to the future of businesses while at the same moment this
administration is apologizing to the American people for the exposure
of confidential FBI files--I just find absolutely unbelievable that
this kind of snafu could be permitted by and enacted by several of the
employees at the White House

[[Page S7361]]

that have unlimited access to extremely--I say ``extremely''--
confidential information on hundreds of prominent Americans.
After this incident, it gives me pause. And it might be clear that
not only does this President believe in big Government, but, I add,
does he also believe in Big Brother? Contrary to popular opinion, Big
Brother is probably watching and listening to all of us.

A startling fact revealed this week is that over the last 4 years
electronic eavesdropping has increased by 100 percent; from 340 in 1993
to an estimated 700 in 1996. Does that mean that we have more criminal
activity? I do not think so. I think in fact that most of the crime
figures are going the other way. The 1994 Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act mandates that all of the Nation's telephone
carriers build special access for Government wiretappers as these new
telephone companies develop new digital telephone systems, and that
access makes it easier for the Government to listen to just about
anybody or anything that they want to.
Right now in this country among the business community--and after the
passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that allowed this new
superinformation highway to be built and to be advanced--we are seeing
that information highway used for many purposes: Business creation,
national security, communications, and exchanging information. Most of
the integrity of that information highway will depend on the kind of
encryption or the codes that we can put so that whoever we mail to we
make sure that it is for their eyes only and that it has not been
monkeyed with or tampered with.
Any of the three is crucial in doing business on today's information
highway. It is just like you drive a truck. If you want to ship some
goods to Pennsylvania, you use a public highway. That could be called
the Internet. What do you do? You lock the truck. The truck gets on the
highway, gets off the highway. You want to make sure that your property
is protected. That is very essential in this business, this business of
high tech and using the information highway.
So basically, we need security through encryption technology to
protect our bank transactions, our health transactions--telemedicine is
a reality nowadays. We will deliver our medical services via the
information highway. Your medical records should be kept secure--
Internet commerce; in other words, if you are doing business on the
Internet, you have communiques for your people, their eyes only--and,
of course, software security.
There is intense international competition in the technology of
encryption. So, Mr. President, we do not live in a vacuum. Other
countries are developing encryption technology. But American software
companies are hurt by the old World War II-type mentality to encryption
technology.
Ironically, the only obstacle to creating the safe environment in
cyberspace is none other than the White House. The President actually
argues it is imperative for Government to keep a decoder key, a decoder
key--they call it key escrow--of each company's encryption codes for
public safety. I am wondering whose safety they are really looking out
for.
This graph sums it up for us. Confidential FBI files and back door
gateways to our computers are off limits. It is off limits. People can
understand a snafu, but they do not understand when their privacy has
been invaded without their knowledge and without them giving authority
to look at that information.
If you are having security troubles with confidential paper files,
how can the Government be trusted with highly sensitive proprietary
encryption codes for multibillion-dollar high-tech companies? I just
happen to believe that the American people have real concerns about Big
Brother. It is called trust. They just do not trust the Federal
Government to have any kind of control over their privacy anymore. And
using the FBI to investigate anybody is only the tip of the iceberg
when it comes to the potential for corruption in the computer industry.
I have America on my mind today, and I am really concerned about the
stand that the administration has taken on encryption. I was in Palo
Alto on Monday, a week ago, talking about this very thing and, yes, it
is something that we are not allowed to export, an encryption that goes
beyond the 40-bit-link standard. We can buy it in this country. We can
use it in this country. It is about a $15 billion a year export
business that was locking our software production. You can talk about
strictly a business deal, but basically we must have encryption if we
are to move more things electronically, even for national security.
I urge the President to rethink his position on encryption technology
and just support the efforts to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens. I
take that very seriously. I think this Government should take it very
seriously. And I think the people of this country should have very,
very serious concerns with even a little snafu. And it is not a little
snafu, folks. It is not little. It is big. And it is just the basis of
a free society.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. He
brings to the Senate floor a unique expertise on privacy in the new
technology and I appreciate very much his sharing that with us here
this afternoon.
In just one moment I am going to yield to the Senator from Idaho, but
returning to this editorial as a postscript of what we heard from the
Senator from Montana and a prelude to what we will hear from the
Senator from Idaho, it goes on to say, and I quote:

A deeply disturbing picture already has emerged based on
sworn depositions the House Committee on Reform and Oversight
obtained from Mr. Livingstone and his hand-picked detailee,
Army civilian investigator and political operative, Anthony
Marceca. The deposition of former White House counsel William
Kennedy III adds to the concern.

Adds to the concern.

If the new administration attached much importance to
security requirements for White House employment, it is not
evident.

I repeat: ``It is not evident.''
With that, Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator
from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Idaho is recognized
for up to 15 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from
Georgia, and also the Senator from Montana, for their comments on this
very critical issue.
I see two lines of thought when it comes to the White House and the
responsibility as it relates to the FBI files and controversy. The
first line is that the White House masterminded the request for the FBI
files in order to compile a political enemies list and make trouble for
their political opponents. That is the first line I think any
reasonable person listening might gather.
The second line is that Craig Livingstone operated independently, and
if the White House is guilty of anything then it is guilty only of
incompetence or sheer ignorance. Somehow one of those lines in the
hearings that are underway must prevail.
Now, if none of those are true, then I would offer a third option,
what I call the agricultural approach. Maybe it is from my background,
but it goes something like this. In farming country, you should not be
too surprised if you are growing wheat and you plant wheat that wheat
is what you get.
What am I saying here? I am saying that if you plant a political
operative as a director of the Office of Personnel Security, and a
political operative who boasts about helping in the dirty tricks of the
last Clinton campaign, you should not be too surprised if you harvest a
crop of dirty tricks and FBI files. In other words, you reap what you
sow, and it appears that the White House has sown some pretty bad seed
in the Office of Personnel Security.
The point is that even if the White House did not plan this
operation, it has established the kind of culture that allows and even
encourages abuse of power to occur.
What do I mean by that? I mean an approach to Government that is
fundamentally at odds with the concept of the limited central
authority. I mean an elitist view that casually accepts the misuse of
power as long as the individuals involved are members of the

[[Page S7362]]

politically correct circle driven by politically correct goals. I mean
an environment where honor and character get lost somewhere in the
political spin of the week.

It is not just Craig Livingstone or Anthony Marceca. In a previous
White House, Republican or Democrat, those two would have been stopped
well before any confidential files were ever requested. In fact,
someone like Mr. Livingstone, with his background and lack of
professional credentials, simply would not have made it to any post in
any other White House except this one.
Even the President's own party recognized the potential problems that
they are now having to live with. Former Senator Dennis DeConcini
reviewed White House security operations 2 years previously and
recommended a number of changes, including getting a new chief of
security who was nonpartisan and professionally qualified.
That is a Democrat Senator saying to a Democrat White House: You have
a problem down there, and you ought to fix it so you do not have a
problem. Of course, he was ignored. But in a culture that rewards
political gamesmanship, the most qualified individuals are those with
the greatest skills on outwitting the opposition. And in that culture,
Craig Livingstone was not just adequate, he was an outstanding
candidate for the job. His fellow political operative, Anthony Marceca,
was an outstanding candidate for his assistant.
In that culture, it was no big deal to abuse the FBI and violate the
privacy rights of innocent citizens; just make sure you do it for the
right reasons, make sure nobody can prove anything bad came of it. That
is the name of the game in this White House, and I think all of this is
going to show that is the kind of game Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca
were part of.
You would think an administration that prides itself on dedication to
civil liberties would have shown a lot more concern about the so-called
snafu, if it really was any surprise at all. After all, we are not
talking about dropping by the local library and looking up some public
official in ``Who's Who,'' or asking for an official biography on
someone. These are highly confidential FBI files that can contain very
embarrassing and even false information.
Senators cannot get these files. You and I would need a good,
official reason, an authorization, and even then we would have to
review the files in a strictly controlled setting in the presence--let
me repeat--in the presence of an FBI agent. You and I could not pick up
the phone and demand these files but for only official reasons, and
then if they were brought to us under those official reasons, that FBI
person would remain present so we would never be allowed to copy or
take notes from these files. Yet here these files were just dumped at
the White House, by all reports, and we have discovered that they were
accessible to interns and others without security clearances.
Where are the White House civil libertarians, who should be raising
the roof about this breach of trust and this abuse of power? The
Constitution is not self-enforcing. Our liberties require actual
defenders and actual champions. Yet, in the culture of the present
administration, this misconduct gets nothing more than labeled as a
bureaucratic snafu?
How did Mr. Marceca's lawyer put it? He said his client's files
``show a bureaucratic process being carried out by a bureaucrat * * *''
I guess we are supposed to assume that anything a bureaucrat does will
be OK because, after all, the Clinton administration's motives, of
course, were beyond question, and whatever is done in advance of its
goals is, therefore, justifiable. Is that what the American people are
being served up at this moment, and is that what they are expected to
accept?
I do not buy that explanation. I hope no one listening will. Neither
does a majority of the American people, I think. If you look at the
polls, they are not buying it, thank goodness.
Let me repeat that. A majority of the American people do not believe
the official White House explanation, and that is despite the fact that
the media is doing its best to downplay the entire fiasco. Maybe the
American people realize that the bureaucracy is not a thing, it is
people, presumably officials, who are accountable to the public for
their actions. Maybe they do not agree that supposedly noble motives of
the Clinton bureaucracy justify every action. No, I do not think
they believe that either. Or maybe this is just an implausible story,
and maybe it is just one too many, story after story, spin after spin,
that has come out of this White House. Thank goodness the American
people are starting to disbelieve.

Let us not forget how we learned about these files, though, in the
first place. While we are trying to understand the spin of false
information, the House committee investigating the improper firing of
Billy Dale and other White House travel officials or employees had to
threaten jail to the White House counsel in order to shake relevant
documents loose. It had already been determined that these people had
been fired in a false way. It was in those documents, which they had to
threaten the highest level of effort on the part of this Congress to
get, that we discovered that Billy Dale's files were requested, and
that was only the beginning of an effort that uncovered all of this
much larger request.
Originally, if you remember, Mr. President, we were told it was only
300 files. Then, lo and behold, 400 files. And, my goodness, now it is
700 files. Originally, we were told an outdated list was at the bottom
of the bureaucratic snafu. Then we learned no such list could possibly
have been generated at the time through the normal resources.
We cannot find out for sure who hired Mr. Livingstone, and no one has
yet to explain why this work on confidential files of Republican
appointees and former National Security Council staff was given
priority well beyond the publicized backlog of an unfinished check on
security clearances of hundreds of Clinton appointees. I must tell you,
none of it makes sense. None of their stories seem to fit. All of their
stories are a bit different.
How, then, can Mr. Marceca take the fifth? Why would he take the
fifth? Is it his own files he is concerned about? Something is wrong,
dramatically wrong.
Mr. President, to their credit, members of the President's party have
denounced this as a clear abuse of power. ``Whose power, the
President's?''
``Well, of course not. Bill didn't know about it''--excuse me--``the
President didn't know anything about this. It was somebody down the
line.''
Let me suggest a culture, a style, a way of doing business in this
White House that starts at the top. It starts with the President. He
was the one who said we will have the most ethical White House and the
most ethical administration in the history of our country.
Mr. President, you did not keep any of your campaign promises. This
is one promise as a President that you have not kept either. This is a
White House and an administration that is now ripped and torn with
controversy. Now a hit list, a campaign list, to go after Republicans
or anyone else who might get in their way. I am sorry, this one does
not wash. I think the American people recognize it does not wash,
either.
I think it is time the White House comes clean. Obviously, I think it
is time this administration, and maybe this President, tell us the
truth.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the
senior Senator from Idaho. I think he has raised questions that clearly
are on the mind of every American.
In one moment, I am going to yield up to 7 minutes to the senior
Senator from South Carolina, but I am first going back to this very
telling editorial. I have been quoting it all afternoon. This is from
the Washington Post of July 3:

Not only was Mr. Livingstone professionally unqualified for
his job, but also his own background investigation raised
questions regarding his suitability to fill such a sensitive
position. Yet, when FBI background investigations on White
House employees arrived at the White House, they were
adjudicated by Mr. Livingstone, of all people, according to
his superior, Mr. Kennedy.
As has been raised by every speaker here this afternoon, the
incongruities of a person with no security background holding this
responsibility and arbitrarily skimming through hundreds of personal
records that he was

[[Page S7363]]

able to obtain from the FBI produces a series of formidable questions
about the integrity of our Government and our system and the rights of
our individual citizens.
Mr. President, I yield up to 7 minutes at this time to the Senator
from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The senior Senator from South
Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is appropriate that the Senate and
the House of Representatives continue to examine the troubling
developments recently uncovered at the White House. The American people
have a right to know the details and intentions of requests from the
Clinton administration to the FBI for hundreds and hundreds of
sensitive background files on private citizens.
FBI Director Freeh has ordered new procedures to protect sensitive
background material following unjustified and improper requests by the
Clinton White House for over 700 FBI background files. Director Freeh
has said that the White House had no justification for gathering these
files and that the situation was an egregious violation of privacy.
Director Freeh said that the requests from President Clinton's
operatives in many instances served no official purpose and at one
point he stated that the FBI had been victimized.
The White House has said that its collection of FBI files of private
citizens was an innocent mistake. That is their response before the
facts are examined and seems to reflect an instinctual reaction by the
White House anytime questions arise concerning their operations. The
facts have yet to be fully examined and it strikes me as premature and
politically convenient to describe this situation as a ``bureaucratic
snafu.''
Initially, the White House would have us believe that Mr. Marceca was
a random detailee from the Army who had been arbitrarily selected to
work temporarily at the White House. We have since learned that Mr.
Marceca--who along with Mr. Livingstone handled the sensitive files--is
actually a seasoned Democrat political operative. They both have
extensive political campaign experience. Mr. Marceca sought the post at
the White House to work with his friend, Mr. Livingstone, and officials
in the White House counsel's office wrote to the Secretary of Defense
requesting his assignment.
Recently, we learned that Craig Livingstone--who was the White House
personnel security director--boasted on his resume that he staged
counter-
events for President Clinton during the 1992 Presidential campaign.
Earlier, we learned that his experience in personnel security was
limited to his work with President and Mrs. Clinton's Hollywood
producer friends during the Inaugural activities. Clearly, Craig
Livingstone was not qualified to serve as the head of the White House
personnel security office.
The one thing we have yet to learn is who hired Craig Livingstone. No
one takes credit for his employment. Although a retired FBI agent says
that he was told by White House counsel that Mrs. Clinton wanted him in
that position. Mrs. Clinton has denied being responsible.
At one point senior Presidential adviser, George Stephanopoulos,
praised Craig Livingstone saying he was the man to see whenever you
wanted anything done. Lately, Mr. Stephanopolous has said he does not
know Livingstone that well, has only seen him around. The Washington
Post has referred to Craig Livingstone as a phantom appointment. In a
June 28 editorial, the Washington Post went on to say,

At this stage, nobody at the White House will claim credit
for Craig Livingstone. It gets you wondering whether there
are other people working in sensitive spots in the White
House who are, well, just there, and whose hiring cannot be
accounted for . . . So people just walk in off the street,
sit down at a desk and send for files--or what?

Mr. President, as you know, we are at this point because the White
House only recently turned over documents pursuant to a long-ago
subpoena from the House Oversight Committee. Within the documents
submitted, the House Oversight Committee found a White House request to
the FBI for sensitive background files on Billy Ray Dale. The request
for FBI background on Mr. Dale was dated 7 months after he had been
wrongly fired as head of the White House Travel Office. It was only
after this was discovered by the House Oversight Committee did the
White House admit it had collected FBI reports on hundreds of private
citizens.
Mr. President, it is important that hearings continue because right
now we have more questions than answers. The American people demand
accountability. The American people want to know what right Clinton
administration officials have to request hundreds upon hundreds of
sensitive FBI files on private citizens. What were they doing with this
information? This latest troubling development within the Clinton
administration represents a dangerous practice and one that deserves
careful scrutiny. It is my hope that we will continue to examine this
matter and uncover all of the facts for the American people.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the
distinguished assistant majority leader, the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Georgia
for his leadership today and many times on the floor.
The issue I am going to address today is not one that I enjoy, but it
is one about which, I think, the American people are entitled to the
facts. I want to read a quote that was made in January 1993 by
President Clinton:

I promise the most ethical administration in the history of
the Republic.

January 24, 1993, quoted in the Washington Post.
This administration has been anything but ethical. As a matter of
fact, there has been a litany, a continuation of scandals that have
been plaguing this administration. Some people say they are much to do
about nothing. I disagree. I am afraid some of these scandals are quite
serious. A lot are serious violations of the law, if they turn out to
be proven true. Let me touch on a couple of them.
Probably the most famous one is Whitewater. I heard a reporter
saying, ``Well, there is not a whole lot of substance to that.'' Yet,
the Governor of Arkansas lost his job over Whitewater. There must have
been some substance to the allegations.
Obstruction of justice is against the law, and there were reports
that were subpoenaed that took over 2 years to surface, and they
surfaced adjacent to Mrs. Clinton's quarters, or in her library, which
had very limited access. Obstruction of justice is against the law, and
those files just recently somehow appeared.
There is information in Vincent Foster's office that dealt with tax
returns and dealt with Whitewater and dealt with a lot of different
things that, again, mysteriously disappeared for months. Reports are
that they were actually in the personal quarters of President and Mrs.
Clinton. Those are serious violations of the law if they are
obstructing justice, obstruction of the investigation of Mr. Foster's
death.
A lot of other things have come to light. I will just run through a
litany of them very quickly. In the book ``Blood Sport,'' Mr. Stewart
talked about the Clinton's deducting $20,000 in a principal payment. I
think everyone knows that you deduct interest; you cannot deduct
principal. My son is 26 years old. He recently purchased a townhouse.
He knows you deduct interest; you cannot deduct principal. Yet you had
a Rhodes scholar and an attorney, the President and Mrs. Clinton, and
they deducted $20,000 or more in principal. That is a violation of law.
That is tax evasion, and that is wrong.
Consider Mrs. Clinton's profits that were made from a $1,000
investment in cattle futures or commodity trading that grew to $100,000
in 10 months, that defies probability. I heard some people say that the
chances of that happening are one out of a billion. It is not possible.
Certainly it looks corrupt. Again, I remember President Clinton's
speech in 1992. He said, ``The decade of greed is over.'' But yet you
see this type of thing going on.
There is a trial in Arkansas right now where two bankers are accused
of illegally getting $53,500 in cash for the Clinton campaign. I heard
President

[[Page S7364]]

Clinton is not on trial. I have not heard anybody say, ``Well, what
were they doing with $53,000 in cash?'' Every person in this room that
has run a campaign--we all have campaigns, and maybe you need a couple
hundred dollars in cash every once in awhile, maybe. But you do not
need $53,000 in cash for anything that is legal. I have not heard that
question being asked. Maybe it was legal. Maybe it is legal to take
$10,000 in cash and distribute it around the State, or $50,000. But I
cannot imagine it.
To me it sounds very unethical. Yet that trial is going on today on
whether or not the funds were laundered, and what his involvement was,
and whether jobs were involved quid pro quo for exchange of those kinds
of contributions. But why in the world would somebody have $53,000 in
cash? I have run three statewide campaigns. I do not know that we ever
had $1,000 in cash. I cannot imagine $53,000.
They knew they were breaking the law, a community of individuals did,
when they were withdrawing the money from the bank because they tried
to hide it. So they knew there was some risk. But somebody in the
campaign wanted a lot of cash. That is directly related to, at that
time, Governor Clinton.
Now, Mr. President, we get into this scandal, this latest one,
Filegate. What brought some of that about? Travelgate and the fact that
seven members of the travel office of the White House were fired. I
have always said they had a right to put in their own people, but they
did not have a right to call in the FBI to try to justify an abuse of
power by firing them and then prosecuting Billy Dale. Billy Dale's FBI
file was requested 7 months after he was fired. That is a real abuse of
power.
They did not need the FBI file then, yet they requested the file on
him and hundreds of others, maybe several hundred. And 408 was the
number that people are using now. Originally, it was a couple hundred,
then 400. Now we find maybe another 300, maybe Mr. Marceca had several
hundred others. Maybe well over 1,000 files the White House had on
individuals. But the FBI files were certainly an abuse of power. The
408 were almost all on Republicans. So if it was not political, why
were they only investigating Republicans? Why were they investigating
individuals who had not had access to the White House in over a year or
longer?
These files were requested in December 1993 and early 1994, all upon
Republicans who left the White House at least a year earlier. These
were for permanent access to the White House so they would have open
access to come and go as you please. The individuals whose FBI files
were collected did not need permanent access to the White House. They
could get a visitor's pass like anybody here can. If you go visit the
White House or if you have a special guest, you get a pass for a day.
You do not need an FBI background check for a visitor's pass. But a
background check was requested by the White House for these at least
408 individuals.

This is a real abuse of power. A real abuse of power. Maybe an
egregious abuse of power. It is particularly egregious that the White
House requested the FBI file on Billy Dale whom they previously fired.
Yet, not only did they fire him, but they prosecuted him and persecuted
him and wanted to try to justify their firing of him. They did not have
a good reason to fire him except maybe to replace him with some
cronies. So they tried to justify their firing of him by pulling in the
FBI. That is an abuse of power, and certainly should be reviewed.
But when we find out now that they requested the files of 408 others,
and they were in the hands of not national security people, they were
in the hands of Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca, two people who would
be charitably defined as political hacks, hatchet men, people who
wanted to dig up dirt on opponents, and did that in past campaigns, and
had access to private files which could destroy the lives and careers
of individuals, that is unbelievable. And it happened, happened in this
administration. For President Clinton to say it was a bureaucratic
snafu I think belittles the intelligence of the American people.
Mr. President, when Senators receive an FBI file--it is done very
seldom. I have only done it a couple times, a few times. Any time I
have had an FBI file in my office, that FBI file has also been
accompanied by an FBI agent or a staff member with particular security
clearance. That file does not leave the presence of the FBI agent or
that staff member with special clearance. I cannot Xerox it. I cannot
photocopy it. I cannot take notes from it. I cannot do anything with
it. I cannot pick somebody and say, here is what it says. I can read it
and hand it back. That file does not leave the presence of an FBI agent
or that special staff member.
That file, when it leaves my office, is returned to a locked vault.
It is not obtainable or accessible by anyone. To think that the White
House obtained hundreds and evidently were trying to get hundreds more,
had those in not a secure area, not in an area that was protected,
under the control of a couple of political hacks, for whatever reason,
is really not acceptable. We would not have found out this information
if it had not been for the House of Representatives and their
threatening contempt-of-Congress action against this administration.
So, Mr. President, it is with real regret, but when I read the
President's quote of January 4, 1993, which says, ``I promise the most
ethical administration in the history of the Republic,'' I just laugh.
This may be the most unethical administration. It certainly brings back
comparisons to Watergate and the Nixon administration. But this
administration may even exceed some of the abuses of power that
transpired at that time. I do not say that lightly. It is with real
regret.
Mr. President, I just urge the White House to begin cooperating, as
the President said that he would. They have yet to date to release all
information that the House committee has requested. We still do not
know who hired Mr. Livingstone. We do not know what are in the files
Mr. Marceca has. Mr. Marceca has taken the fifth. He refused to testify
before a Senate committee. That is his right to do so. Maybe the White
House should encourage him, ``No, don't take the fifth. Go ahead and
tell everything you know. Release the information. Let's see what was
on your disc that has all this information on Republicans, and so on.
Let the information come out. Let's find out the truth.''
Let us find out the truth on Mrs. Clinton's commodity trading. How
did she make a profit that goes from $1,000 to $100,000 in 10 months?
We need to find out answers to that. What did happen to the billing
records or to the Rose Law Firm Whitewater billing records that were in
the White House for 2 years?
We need answers to these questions. I heard Mr. Clinton say, ``I hope
we find out the answers.'' But the White House really has not
cooperated. Certainly, they have not been the most ethical
administration in the history of the Republic. Quite the contrary, they
may be the most unethical administration in the history of the
Republic. I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. In just a moment I am going to yield, but I first want
to thank the assistant majority leader for the contributions he has
made in the grave questions that are hanging over Washington here
today. As usual he has done it in an exemplary manner.
I am going to read one more quote, and then I am going to yield to
the Senator from Idaho. This is in the Washington Post, Wednesday, July
3. It says:

It doesn't get any better with Anthony Marceca, the on-loan
Army civilian who improperly requisitioned and reviewed more
than 700 FBI files. Mr. Marceca, it now turns out, wasn't
retained at the White House following his 6-month stint.
Again from Mr. Kennedy's deposition: ``Tony's background had
come in, and there were some problems revealed with it that
made me think it might be better if he kind of went back to
where he was.'' And Mr. Marceca did. But he returned to Mr.
Livingstone's White House office long enough, reportedly,
to gain unauthorized access to his own FBI file, which
enabled him to sue two sources he believed provided
negative testimony against him. What a pair.

So the Washington Post is saying. What a pair Tony Marceca and Mr.
Livingstone have turned out to be. It is beyond comprehension that
these people

[[Page S7365]]

would be at the center of security in the White House of the United
States of America.
Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his efforts
today. Mr. President, I will address this issue from the aspect of the
type of security and sensitivity that surrounds an individual FBI file,
Federal Bureau of Investigation. I come at it as a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
From time to time, it was my responsibility to review the FBI file of
a nominee who would be coming forward for Senate confirmation. When I
review that file, it would be done in the privacy of my office. No
staff members were allowed to be present. Those are the rules under
which we must operate. The individual bringing the sealed file over--in
this case, it would be from the White House general counsel, or it
could be an FBI agent--remains in the room with the individual Senator
as we review this extremely sensitive material.
Now, what type of material is in there? It can include the tax
information of the person that has been reviewed, the personal finances
back just as far as you want to go, the credit histories of the
individual. If you had some problems in the past with your credit, if
you had some areas that have been a problem, they are identified. The
international travel which you have taken: Where have you been, why
were you there, who did you see? The education, of course, including
your college and high school grades; your work history; your health.
I spoke to a highly successful professional who has had to have an
FBI file constructed on his behalf only to have him contacted and
asked, ``Well, have you had a mental disorder in the past, in fact, at
the age of 18?'' This individual has to think and say, ``Well, at one
time I went in and because of stress that we were going through, work
related,'' the individual is a workaholic, the physician had put down
mental exhaustion. Is that what is recorded, then, as a mental disorder
in this file?
How many Americans would like to have interviews conducted among
their neighbors and among their coworkers and friends, again, for as
many years back? Do you think perhaps somewhere in that history there
is somebody that may have a beef, somebody that maybe does not think
you are just as good as others may think you are? They can share that,
and none of these have to be corroborated or substantiated, but they go
into those files. That is how sensitive this material is.
Now, I have described for you the process that an individual Member
of the Senate goes through when called upon to review an FBI file, one
file. Now, how in the world do we make this quantum jump that someone
who was a political operative, that nobody in the White House can now
determine whoever hired this person, can call up the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, probably one of the most highly regarded law enforcement
agencies of the entire world, to have some political operative call the
FBI and say, ``I want these files.'' Not just one file, two files, but
as has been substantiated, hundreds of files, hundreds of files.

If I were a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I would
feel that my entire credibility was being questioned, that this sort of
political operation has somehow clouded over that law enforcement
agency. I believe that not only does it question the credibility of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, but I think it has created an enormous
cloud over the people's house, the White House of the United States of
America, where political operatives have access to those files of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and nobody knows how it happened or
how that person was hired. Yet, that person is the director of
personnel security for the White House. Something is wrong. Something
is very, very wrong.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. I think
he has added a very important ingredient. While many citizens, I think,
understand how sensitive the FBI files are by their nature, that it is
a collection of truth and gospel, nevertheless, recorded in the files,
he has hit on a very sensitive nerve, that by discussing what is on the
inside of those files he is telling all American citizens how very,
very sensitive these files are and how damaging they can be, and for
those reasons the FBI has traditionally guarded these files jealously,
which is why I will refer to that in a minute, why Director Freeh is so
disturbed about circumstances that have occurred here. I thank the
Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, I have been in the mood to quote newspapers here this
afternoon. I have a copy of today's Washington Times. It has a
photograph of the Vice President announcing his bid for President in
1988. The heading is, ``Oh, That Guy: The Controversy Surrounding
Filegate Will Undoubtedly Intensify This Week as Congress Reconvenes
After the Fourth of July Recess.'' It goes on to say that the Vice
President doesn't recall much about his 1988 campaign as it relates to
Mr. Livingstone. He does offer that the advance man performed well in
his duties, but the picture is most interesting because it is the Vice
President and Mrs. Gore, one other fellow, and Mr. Livingstone, right,
front and center.
Mr. President, in the testimony that we have heard this morning or
the statements that have been made time and time again, we refer to the
number of files, which, as I said, went from 300 to 400 to 600 to 700,
and now I have seen a figure of 900. I believe, as important as the
discussion is about what was going on at the White House, is the
question, what was going on at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
I cite in this June 14 for immediate release from the Office of the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: ``The FBI inquiry has
also discovered Director Freeh said that the White House has identified
408 files sought and received by the White House without jurisdiction.
Freeh said those files had been voluntarily surrendered by the White
House to the FBI,'' and it goes on with a series of numbers.
My question is, after intense ``inquiry'' of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, how is it that the number of files certified by the FBI
that were turned over to the White House is not the right number? One
would think after ordering sweeping new measures to protect sensitive
background investigation files and an inquiry in the FBI itself that by
now there would be no question as to the number of files that had been
obtained by the White House from the FBI.
I hope that the appropriate committees of jurisdiction will pursue
answers from the FBI as to how in the world, given the long history and
the depth of the sensitivity of these files, how in the world a siren
would not go off by the time you had gotten to hundreds and hundreds of
these files leaving the FBI.
I want to read another statement or two from this report, and then I
am going to yield my time back. I know the Senator from Virginia is
anxious to do a statement in morning business. I will not be but a
minute or two longer.

It is important to note, Director Freeh said, that the FBI
report contains this finding on the files requested by and
given to the White House. Among the unquestionably
unjustified acquisitions were reports relating to discharged
travel office employees, Billy Ray Dale and Barnaby Brasseux.
Director Freeh ordered the inquiry on learning a week ago
that the White House requested and received a background file
of Dale, a former White House travel director, months after
he was fired. This does not sound like an arbitrary
bureaucratic error, particularly in light of the difficulties
the White House has had with Mr. Dale.
The FBI inquiry was expanded when it was learned that the
White House earlier--the Clinton administration--also
requested and received a large number of files on officials
in the previous Bush administration and other persons. In
addition, the FBI learned the White House requested and
received the FBI file on a second discharged travel employee,
Brasseux.

I am reading directly from the material given to the public by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
It says:

In the past, the FBI routinely filled White House requests
for copies of previous background files without checking to
see if there were pending criminal investigations of the
subject. Under new procedures, there will be checks on all
subjects to determine if there are criminal investigations.
Director Freeh said it is now clear that the system was very
vulnerable to misuse and that government officials, over
several decades, including himself, had not provided adequate
oversight of the system, resulting now in violations of
privacy.

In addition, Mr. President, we currently have letters from the House

[[Page S7366]]

committee chairman on ways and means to the Internal Revenue
Department, IRS, the Commissioner, to determine if any of the data with
regard to confidential tax matters is in this material, because if it
is, that is a felony. Thorough clarification should be forthcoming from
the Internal Revenue Service to comfort us that none of this
information that was so willy-nilly distributed throughout the White
House found its way into their hands, including material from the
Internal Revenue Service.
So, as has been demonstrated here this afternoon, there are a host of
legitimate questions that have deep meaning with regard to the
protection of the rights of individual citizens in these United States
of America.
Mr. President, with that, I conclude my remarks and yield back any
time remaining that was dedicated to my control.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Robb and Mr. Moynihan pertaining to the
submission of Senate Resolution 276 are located in today's Record under
``Submissions of concurrent and Senate resolutions.'')

____________________